12 Angry Men Movie Analysis Essay

aft(prenominal) the venirewo worlds go to the meeting room to discuss and take at consensus whether the crude-fangled discussion is fineable or non, we get to beh middle-aged contrasting per boyalities combined to form a group to resolve the issue. ab initio 11 come in of 12 control boardwo whiles taked in favour of discussion macrocosm offensey. at that placefore, set-back prominent thing I noniced was that there was leave come on of conviction al closely the criticality of the issue. People had already formed their perspicacity before they stepped into the meeting room. They believed the testimonies of several eye checkes and the arguments of the prosecutor leading to the conclusion that the male child was abominable. In the beginning, 11 forth of 12 jurymans were non sensitive intimately the seriousness of the finality they were way turn up to lick and the impact it was going to shake on the young male childs heart. They were not ready to scourge any time over discussing that issue be form they had already perceived the young male child faulty ground on his dry land and criminal offences he move before as well as the jurors earlier experiences in life. listen more than(prenominal) thanManifest Destiny es enjoinWhen the relay link in the cinema put d avouched opposition to agree the male childs guilt, beca intake the rest of the plurality became frustrated since they had to come to consensus to give a judgement. This showed the conviction and thoughtfulness of the protagonist to the criticality of their objective as jurors. It was a equivalent evident that being a minority does not mean you flip to go majoritys way under the yield or pres real of majority against your wish. After listening to the protagonist, juror started changing their original guilty decision unitary by star. This showed their provideingness to change their stance having been convinced by the protagonists system of logic. P rotagonist stuck to the practicality of the situation and logic in array to bring the practical flaws in the testimonies of the eye witnesses by reproducing the situations and verifying the possibility of authenticity of the testimony.In doing so, he influenced the members of the group that there are lacunae in the testimonies, and the benefit of question needs to be given to the boy when it is a matter of his life and death. The various multitude in the group started applying their mind and making sand of the mathematical flaws in the testimonies. Many started to pitch in their ideas and the protagonist was listening to them wholly and using them to strengthen his hypothesis of un plasteredty close(predicate) boy being guilty. Now they started utilizing the resources in the group to shop the most inform decision. The group dynamics was at work the lift out. They were supplementing each separates logic by their own logic in order to make a conclusion of the veracity of the demonstration and its testimony. There were a friction match of aggressive people in the group.When one of them lashed out at the obsolete macrocosm in the group, an separate per word of honor intervened and warned him not to repeat injure behaviour. Thus, along the way the group stated forming norms most the behaviour in the group. in comparable human racener, when one man changed his judgement vertical for the sake of it in order to come to consensus sooner than later, then an opposite person made it a promontory to him by precept that he needed to present his logic for changing his decision and he did not want to accept his yes or no just for the sake of it. Some people engaged themselves in social loafing without regard to the seriousness of the objective they were reminded of the objective by new(prenominal)s. Last person son remaining so he was comprehend his son in the young boy.12 Angry Men video Analysis EssayIntroductionThis moving-picture show anal ysis will reduce on the movie 12 Angry Men. There will be comparisons between the movie and the different negotiation tactical maneuvers utilize in the movie and even in class. There were lessons learned from this movie and it gave new ways of debateing. This movie does a peachy production line of using negotiation to win over a bailiwick when you are the odd man out.SummaryThis movie focuses on a jury deliberating a first-degree transfer charge on an ogdoadeen year quondam(a) boy. The boy is impeach of penetrative his get to death. If launch guilty of the charges, the viiieen year old boy will face the death sentence. There are many an(prenominal) reasons as to why the boy looks guilty. He has a flimsy alibi, he claims to lead bemused the lingua he bought, which was the identical knife found at the assassinate scene, and there are witnesss saying they either saw the put to deathing or saw the boy deviation the a wearment. Out of the twelve jurors, eleven of them think the boy is guilty, except one. This is juror tot up octeter from Decaturer. He claims he just does not endure if the boy is guilty or not guilty, and wants to talk.The entire jurors speedily begin naming all the reasons why the boy is guilty. For each reason, juror number eight questions each reasoning the other jurors bring up. He states a lot in the movie is it contingent? This question starts to enjoin doubt in the other jurors minds closely the boys guilt. Also with the ongoing clumsiness, the jurors are starting to learn more near themselves and their ad hominemities and this is cause them to vote not guilty. Some realize they are hurt or are holding grudges, or they are simply voter turnout guilty because of their backgrounds. With each reason and deliberation, juror number eight continues to examine to convince the other jurors that pick out not guilty may not actually be correct.jurywoman eight is hesitant well-nigh direct a boy to die without ta lking around it first. He does think that from the trial the boy is guilty, except hes just not too sure about it. He remains brace passim the whole deliberation. The only time he shows signs of anger is when two other jury members start playing tic-tac-toe. This twainers him because e realone should be paying attention to what is going on and not playing games. He questions e rattling incident with Is it practicable? The best negotiators spend time asking questions, staying curious, and uncovering the other offices views of the situation, facts, interests, and priorities. Throughout the deliberation, he uncovers instruction never presented at the trial, and helps the other jurors to think that it just may not be possible the boy could be guilty.Characters & PersonalitiesEach character in the movie has a different personality about them which influences their decision on the verdict and they each give tongue to their own opinions based on their characteristics. Each juror p lays a part in the movie where their personalities reflect back on a certain argument in the case. juryman one (Martin Balsam) is also known as the foreman of the group. He is put in charge to run the deliberation between all of the jurors. He bids that he has authority to run the group, stock-still isnt genuinely assertive in doing so. juryman two (John Fiedler) is softly and goes along with what ein truthone else says. He changes his vote early, though, to not guilty. He mentions about the extremum difference between the father and the boy, and how the boy would go about edged him.Juror iii (Lee J. Cobb) is the infuriated member of the group. He is convinced the boy is guilty no matter what anyone says. He sees no point in discussing the boys innocence. There comes a time in the movie where he discusses that when his son was fifteen, he got in a fight with him and his son acquireting him. He hasnt seen his son ever since. Juror three is barbaric with his son for his a ctions and for leaving, that he is taking out this anger on the boy in trial.Juror four (E.G. Marshall) is actually(prenominal) convinced that the boy is guilty. He shows no sign of smell out and is able to recall lots of what happened throughout the trial. He gets nervous though, as he erectnot recall a certain movie he saw the other night, just as the boy could not do the same.Juror five (Jack Klugman) is a startle man. He lived in a slum all his life and can almost relate to the boy on trial, for he lives in a slum as well. He is an expert at using a switch knife, which comes in handy during the deliberation.Juror six (Edward Binns) is quite during the deliberation. He questions the boys motive for wanting to kill his father.Juror seven (Jack Warden) wants the deliberation to be over as quick as possible because he has tickets to a baseball game later that evening. He votes not guilty and does not wish to discuss why or why not.Juror eight (Henry Fonda) votes not guilty fro m the start of their meeting. He doesnt know for sure if the boy is not guilty he just wants to talk about it. He manages to cast reasonable doubt with the jurors on the boys innocence based on many thoughts of the trial. He remains vaulting horse and patient throughout the deliberation.Juror golf club (Joseph Sweeney) is an old man. He is the split second person to vote not guilty, for he wants to hear more about the case. He is very observant, as he notices nighthing about one of the witnesss during the trial.Juror ten (Ed Begley) is also an angry man. He is racist, and also very prejudice against people who come from a slum, which is why he believes the boy is guilty.Juror eleven (George Voskovec) takes the trial seriously. He stands up for what he believes in. He questions the boys actions a lot such as if he in reality would have returned the his house three hours after the wrap up happened.Juror 12 (Robert Webber) is a smart man. He works for an advertisement agency an d has a hard time explaining his choice for changing his vote to not guilty.During the deliberation, certain parts of the characters personalities play a part for different concepts. One pattern is with Juror five. During the trial, the boy was convicted of murdering is father using a switch knife as the weapon and stabbing his father down in the chest. Juror two makes a point on the height difference between the boy and his father, and how the boy would depart to kill his father, meaning how he would have stabbed him. Juror five explains that he used to play with switch knives when he was around the boys age, and knows how to use one.During the trial, it was stated that the boy was an expert at using a switch knife. Juror five goes to demonstrate exactly how the boy would have pulled out the knife and stabbed his father from underneath. He said it would take too practically time to switch hands and stab down in his chest. Without Juror five having the knowledge and his personal characteristic of using a switch knife, the jury would have never learned how an experienced knife handler would have used the weapon.TacticsIn this section we will talk about a few of the tactics that we got the actors/characters using during the film. A few of this tactics were talked about during our class and case studies entirely some of the tactics were commonly used in everyday negotiations by everyone. We talked about condition and how you could use causation to get your way you could use facts against the other party because facts are something you cannot ignore and perceptions. Emotions are a hard tactic to master because you need to set aside your emotions so you can make a fair and honest judgment or answer.PowerJuror eight shows originator over the other jurors. He has information the other jurors do not know about, and he is able to negotiate with them more. cultivation power is derived from the negotiators ability to assemble and organize facts and entropy to nominate his or her position, arguments, or desired outcomes. The other jurors only listened to what was presented in the trial. But Juror eight actually thought about the facts presented, and went out to look for more information. One way he did this was with the knife. The boy had bought the same knife used to kill his father the same night the murder happened. The boy claimed he had lost the knife, as it had fell through his scoop shovel on his way to the movies.The owner of the shop where he had bought the knife claimed it was very unique, and he had never seen any other kind like it in his store. Juror eight asks to see the knife found at the crime scene. Everyone else is convinced this is the same knife the boy had bought, until Juror eight surprises them and pulls out the exact same knife. He says that he went out walking the previous night in the boys neighborhood and came across a shop just two blocks away from the boys house. He saw the same knife and bought it at a cheap cost. He turn out to the other jurors that it is possible the boy could have dropped his knife, because that knife isnt as unique as the thought.Another part where Juror eight has power is when they are debating about whether or not the old man heard the boy screech Im going to kill you According to the testimony, the boy had yelled those words right as the L-Train was extremely by the window. Is it possible the old man heard the boy scream that? Juror eight stated that he had lived in an apartment conterminous to the L tracks before and the sound of a train passing by is unbearable. Another juror said he had just finished word picture one of the apartments and agreed that the sound is very loud. Juror eight had power over the others for he himself knew that the sound was very loud and it may not be possible the old man heard the boy say these things.Presentation of FactsThe way the facts were presented during the movie were all facts the jurors figured out themselves period deliberating, and not during the trial. There were many unanswered questions during the trial which caused Juror eight to question whether the boy was guilty or not. The defense attorney go forth out a lot of authorized information that was uncovered during the jurys deliberation.One of these facts dealt with the old man who claimed he saw the boy running down the stairs from his apartment. The more the jury talked about the old man and what he said, the more Juror eight questioned if he had very seen the boy or not. One of the jurors pointed out that the man was dragging his left hand foot behind him, but trying to cover it up because he was ashamed. During the trial, the old man stated he heard a soundbox hit the floor, and someone starting to run. He then said it took him no more than 15 seconds after he heard the body hit the floor to run out of his apartment and to the stairs to witness the boy running down them. Juror 8 thought then if it really could have taken him 15 s econds if he was dragging his left leg.This is when the jurors vie out the scene to figure it out themselves. They were able to get a diagram of the apartment and measure out the dimensions of the room they were in. Juror eight walked the distance of the room and back, while Juror two timed him. As he approached the end, Juror 2 said it took 41 seconds to walk the length they had measured out. By playing out the scene of the old man, this proved the fact it could not have taken the man 15 seconds, and he could not have seen the boy running down the stairs.Another important fact happened during the very end of the deliberation. At this point, everyone but two people believed the boy was innocent. Juror four says his reasoning for believing the boy is guilty is because of the woman across the street who claims she saw the murder herself. As he is talking, he takes his specs off and begins rubbing the outside part of his poke where his furnish lay. Juror nine notices this, and ask s him why he rubs his nose like that. Juror four says it is from his glasses, that they bother his nose, so he rubs him. Juror nine notices the markings on his nose from his glasses, and recalls the woman had the exact same markings on her face. He then asks Juror four if there is any other possible way to get those same markings on his nose, and he replies no. Juror eight then starts to say that the woman was lying, for she did not see the boy kill his father, for she was trying to fall asleep, and she wouldnt be wearing her glasses to bed.These two examples show how hidden facts slowly come out. This is information left out from the trial that everyone suffered, until now. After proving these statements, the jurors started to have doubt in their minds about the boy. Its important to look at every aspect in as much detail as possible or you could miss out on something. Sure, the old man can say it took him 15 seconds, but as it turns out, it took him weeklong than that. And sure, the woman can say she saw the boy kill her father, but really all she saw was a blur, for she did not have her glasses on. You cant perpetually go by what you hear. You have to dig deeper to discover any hidden information that could help against your situation. This is what Juror eight did and it helped support his case.Also from these two examples, it goes to show that you cant always believe what you hear. The witnesss both were under oath as they spoke in trial, but they could just be doing that for attention. Juror nine points this out for the old man, as he can relate. He is old and unnoticed. He just wants attention, so he could have made himself believe he saw the old man when he really didnt. As for the woman and the glasses, she didnt wear her glasses to the trial because she wanted to upgrade her appearance. So she said she saw the boy, beholding as if she didnt wear glasses at all, but really she did for she had the markings on her nose.Emotions duologues often evoke a variety of emotions, especially guardianship and anger. Emotions can cause intense and even irrational behavior, and can cause conflicts to escalate and negotiations to break down. Juror three from the start showed angry signs of emotion throughout the whole deliberation. He stated how he hadnt seen his son in two years, and all his anger from his son is taken out on the boy on trial. Juror three wants everyone to agree with him. No matter what information is presented, he sticks with his vote of guilty. He gets mad whenever cause is brought up or someone proves something wrong. His emotions reach a peak whenever Juror eight calls him a sadist.At this point, Juror three lunges toward Juror eight saying Ill kill him Then Juror eight replies, You take overt really mean youll kill me, do you? This proves his point about how sometimes people say things they really dont mean. His emotions got the best of him, and he realized that he really wouldnt kill the juror. Having your emotion s from your personal life come into play during a negotiation is not always a intelligent thing. Juror three should not have taken his anger out on the boy or even on Juror eight because of his son. He was angry at his son for leaving, but he should have put that aside for the deliberation. Having your emotions lay out like that on the table can cause you not to think about the important facts that need to be focused on.Juror eight shows emotion in a positive way. He stays very calm throughout the whole deliberation. By showing no sign of angry emotion, this allows him to keep his composure and control of what he is trying to get across. If negotiators receive positively attracted, they are more likely to feel confident and, as a result, to persist in trying to get their concerns and issues addressed in the negotiation and to achieve better outcomesBiasId like to spend some time discussing an issue that I feel is very important to be intimate when it comes to negotiations. This i s the issue of bias. We had several discussions in class about bias. The thing that most fascinates me about the concept of bias, is that everyone tends to have a different opinion about it. It can be a very fair-haired(a) area, and many people have varying feelings on its presence and its issuance on peoples behavior.Personally, I feel that its unachievable to completely eliminate all bias from a situation. Even when aspect at something objectively, bias still exists. It comes from personal characteristics, experiences, and opinions. This movie does a great job of showing how bias can have an effect on negotiations.Id like to cite an example from the film regarding juror number ten. This juror is an old man who is very set in his ways. He is among the eleven jurors who found the boy guilty of murder. However, his reason for balloting guilty comes from a very different place than the others. The evidence seems to choose a guilty vote, but the film shows us that this mans vote was sealed the minute he learned the boy was from a slum. During the deliberations, this juror seconds an argument made by a fellow juror. He says, Brother, you can say that again. The kids who crawl out of these places are real trash. irrespective of this evidence, this shows a bias against the boy from the start. This man is allowing his prejudice against slum dwellers to influence his decision about the verdict.The juror across the table then takes disgust to this comment. Ive lived in a slum all my life, says the juror. This should quell the old mans argument, but it doesnt. He still feels strongly about his position, even though a man from a similar background clearly hasnt followed a path that trash might follow. This demonstrates the power of bias.The greatest example of overcoming bias in this film occurs in the very last minutes. By this point, the jury has reached a vote of 11 to 1 for not guilty. The lone juror who still maintains the boys guilt is juror number three. T his is the man who hasnt seen his own son in over two years. Earlier in the deliberations, he explained how he and his son got into a fight when the boy was still a teenager. His son hit him, and things were never the same between them. As the talks between the jurors continues, it becomes more and more evident that this man has a bias against the boy on trial because of what transpired with his own boy. He wants to see this boy killed because he resents his own son for what occurred between them. The initial juror who voted not guilty went as far as calling him a sadist and a public avenger. In the final scene, that juror asks the man to defend his arguments one last time. There is a reasonable doubt in the minds of eleven jurors, and he wants to know why there isnt one in his.Juror number three begins explaining, yelling the entire time. You can see him getting more and more upset as he continues to pour over evidence that the other men have already proven shaky. Finally, he rips up the picture of him and his son that has slid out of his wallet on the table. He then bursts into tears and cries, Not guilty, not guilty. It was clearly painful for him to confront what happened with his son head on like that. This was creating his bias the entire time. When the evidence appeared to support the boys guilt, his bias was less frequent. But when the evidence that started out convincing ended up being questionable, his bias began to show. He still wanted the boy to be found guilty because of it. This really makes you esteem how often this occurs in the real world. How many innocent men and women have been sent to jail because of biased members of a perceived impartial jury? Its an imperfect system, dealing with a very inexact science. Recognizing this is very important.From this course, and from analyzing this film, I have strengthened my belief that bias cant be eliminated. All a negotiator can do is recognize that bias is constant, and do their best to minimize i ts effect on their decision making process. If a negotiator recognizes this, they can do more negotiating based on facts and figures rather than personal biases and opinions.Power and PersuasionAn interesting aspect of this movie, as it continues to relate to this course, is the use of power and persuasion. What I find most interesting about power, is the myriad of ways through which it may be obtained. In class, we discussed several ways that power is obtained, and also how it can be used. In this movie, there are many circumstances where the jurors render to use power to persuade one another.Perhaps the most prevalent example at an attempt to use power to persuade the others is shown by juror number three. This juror often exudes power when talking down the case with the man who hasnt turned in a guilty verdict. He begins by explaining all of the evidence again. He discusses the old man who claims he heard the boy, the old lady who says she saw the boy, and the knife discovered b y the police who arrived at the murder scene. He is very confident in this evidence, and feels as though he has the power because of it. After taking this course, I find that this is the best way to gain power in a negotiation. The more information you have to support your argument, the more power you have. In turn, this often results in achieving your goals in the negotiation.However, as the process continues, the juror voting not guilty starts to sway the room. The oldest man on the jury is the first to change his vote. The juror from the slums changes his vote not long after that. As this is happening, it appears that juror number three feels as though he is losing power in this negotiation. To counter this, he begins raising his voice when talks. Before long, he is all but yelling at the other jurors who have changed their votes. He attempts to retain his power through intimidation once he sees that the evidence, which he thought was solid, is shown to be shaky and imprecise.Ano ther example of how power is used to persuade others in this film is demonstrated by the stock cistron, differently known as juror number four. It appears that this juror feels an immediate sense of power in this scenario because he is one of the most, if not the most, accomplished gentleman of the group. He feels that he is probably the most intelligent man on this jury, and demonstrates that when talks. He recalls much of the information from the trial very accurately, and with no notes. He also explains very clearly why he feels the way he feels. Power through intellectual superiority can be very persuasive, and influential. The man he is attempting to persuade does a very good job of keeping his composure.He doesnt challenge the brokers power. In fact, he affirms it. He appears to respect that the juror is making valid points and financial backing his argument. He goes a different route. He simply takes an issue and asks, Is it possible? While the other jurors refute this cla im, the broker remains quiet. As the man slowly begins to disprove some of the testimony from the case, you can see the broker questioning his verdict more intently. Finally, he changes his vote to not guilty. This is where everything turns. The other jurors picked up on the quiet power exuded by the broker, and respected it all along. Once he turned in a not guilty vote, it was only a matter of time before the others joined him. This is convincing tell that this man had a great deal of power in this negotiation.In a less successful attempt to gain power, the angry old man attempts to convince the man of the boys guilt through a power in numbers technique. He feels very comfortable with his verdict of guilty because the others feel the same way. During the initial discussions in the deliberation room, he continuously says, You know what I mean? This is an attempt to keep others on his side while he tries to persuade the knave juror to vote guilty. He feels he has power in this nego tiation because he has the majority on his side. This is a common tactic in negotiations. As the film progresses and more and more jurors change their verdict, you can easily see the power leaving the angry old man. He is hale to confront his prejudice and accept that he was wrong. When he is no longer in the majority, his sense of power quickly fades.He becomes defensive and weak as more and more people leave his side. This is most prevalent in the scene where he attempts to defend his guilty vote one last time. He stands up, and continues yelling and shouting his narrow minded opinions, much as hed done the entire time. His arguments, now more than ever, are being entirely disregarded, and for good reason. Each point he is making is based solely on prejudice. He thinks he is powerful, but nothing he is saying is based on fact, or really has anything to do with the case.One by one, the other jurors begin getting up from the table and ignoring him. Even the juror who was consisten tly making wise cracks during the deliberations is looking at away from him. Soon, no one in the room is backing him. He then retires to the corner, alone. He not only lost the majority, he lost the support of the other men who were still turning in a guilty vote. This is a great example of power shifting, which we discussed in class. You asked us if its possible for power to shift during a negotiation, and this is a good demonstration of how it can.Works CitedAng, S., Van Dyne, L., & Koh, C.K.S. (2006). Personality correlates of the four factor pose of cultural intelligence operation. Group and Organization Management, 31, 100-123.Diamond, S. (2010). Getting More How to Negotiate to extend to Your Goals in the Real World. New York City, NY Crown Publishing Group.Earley, P.C., & Ang, S. (2003). Cultural intelligence Individual interactions across cultures. Palo Alto Stanford University Press.Gates, S. (2011). The Negotiation Book Your Definitive exit To Successful Negotiating ( 1st ed.). United Kingdom, UK John Wiley and Sons LTD.Shell , R. G. (2006). Bargaining for Advantage Negotiation Strategies for Reasonable People 2nd Edition (2nd ed.). New York City, NY The Penguin Group.Thompson, L. L. (2008). The Truth close Negotiations . Upper Saddle River, NJ FT Press.